|
|
Post by Victoria on Oct 18, 2015 8:57:40 GMT -5
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34565631If I'm reading this story right, Amazon are suing individual Fiverr sellers for posting fake reviews. I'm glad they're cracking down on it but I'm surprised they're going after the individuals instead of concentrating on Fiverr. Do you guys think this will stop the fake reviews? Or just force the people who sell them to become a bit cleverer?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deano on Oct 18, 2015 12:51:56 GMT -5
Hard to know, but at least it's a step in the right direction for the rest of us. Fake reviews, even if the author is later exposed, give an unfair advantage to dishonest authors over honest ones. I'm still of the opinion that to review a product on Amazon a reviewer should have to have purchased it. That alone would go a long way to eradicating fake reviews.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on Oct 18, 2015 13:46:15 GMT -5
Hard to know, but at least it's a step in the right direction for the rest of us. Fake reviews, even if the author is later exposed, give an unfair advantage to dishonest authors over honest ones. I'm still of the opinion that to review a product on Amazon a reviewer should have to have purchased it. That alone would go a long way to eradicating fake reviews. I think I agree with you. If you're someone who just enjoys reviewing things but doesn't shop exclusively at Amazon, then the current system is great. And if a review rings true to me (as a customer) I won't discount it because it doesn't have the "verified purchase" tag. But it's beginning to look as though the number of people who leave honest reviews for things they didn't buy on Amazon is being dwarfed by the number who exploit the system to leave dishonest reviews for things they haven't bought at all. I wonder why Amazon hasn't made that change yet? |
|
|
|
Post by Suzy on Oct 18, 2015 14:00:56 GMT -5
Yes, but I send out ARC to reviewers before publication, just so a new book will have a few reviews. They have to state they got a copy in return for an honest review. I think lot of authors do. Those are real reviews and not paid for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deano on Oct 19, 2015 3:04:53 GMT -5
Yes, but I send out ARC to reviewers before publication, just so a new book will have a few reviews. They have to state they got a copy in return for an honest review. I think lot of authors do. Those are real reviews and not paid for. I've done that in the past too, Suzy, but then the reviewer is stating up front that they had a free copy in return for that review. It's the anonymity of reviewing that allows the system to be gamed, for free, by trolls etc. |
|
|
|
Post by ameliasmith on Oct 19, 2015 6:29:44 GMT -5
I am glad that they're going after the fake reviewers, but I would not go so far as to ban the ARC reviews, which are often the most thorough, thoughtful, and critical reviews on a book (certainly that's true of my books). Without some advance reviews, whether through Goodreads, Netgalley, a blog tour, or whatever, I don't see how a new author could get any traction whatsoever, especially because all the best advertising sites (except for facebook, twitter, etc.) require some reviews. Also, editorial reviews have been a major part of the book business for a long time, and though some of these early reviews blur the line between editorial and customer reviews, I think that's OK.
Alternately, there could be a designated editorial reviews section which contributed to the book's star rating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on Oct 19, 2015 7:34:53 GMT -5
Alternately, there could be a designated editorial reviews section which contributed to the book's star rating. I think this might be the answer. There could be a designated period of time (perhaps from just before publication to just afterwards) during which a limited number of unverified reviews can be posted and then after that they would be banned. Perhaps a new release with only these ARC reviews could even have the star rating in a different colour, to show that these are "editorial" reviews and not regular customer ones? Or there could be a separate system to declare that you were given an ARC, and the publisher would have to agree that you were before the review would show up? |
|
|
|
Post by Alan Petersen on Oct 23, 2015 0:32:04 GMT -5
Fiverr is located in Israel, plus they state in their terms not to violate other sites terms, so I think those two things make it hard for Amazon to go after Fiverr, the individuals are easier targets. The music industry went after Napster, but it wasn't until they started suing individual users that it got through that they could go after your for uploading songs to Napster. It's hard to imagine anyone will risk being sued by Amazon for a gig that will make them less than $4 (after Fiverr fees), so that will probably put a dent on those type of gigs. But it won't stop. There is a company that helps big name authors hit the NY Times by pre-ordering thousands of their own books: www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/02/22/heres-how-you-buy-your-way-onto-the-new-york-times-bestsellers-list/That company still doing that even though they were exposed by the WSJ and Forbes. So I doubt paid reviews will ever go away. What happens if make it clear to your ARC/RC recipient that they need to disclose in their review that they received a free copy, but they post their review without the disclosure? Do you ask them to edit it? If they don't add it, do you ask them to delete the review? Or do you self-report to Amazon? I hate to badger someone who accepted a review copy, read it, and left their honest review, but failed to disclose they got it for free, even though they were instructed to add that to their review. |
|
|
|
Post by Suzy on Oct 23, 2015 2:25:35 GMT -5
I always tell them, Alan. Simply because they risk their review being deleted and they might also get an e-mail from Amazon. They have always been grateful for the hint and edited their review accordingly.
|
|
